Okay... this is all sideways to the actual issue at hand. Whether the Bible encourages, discourages, or doesn't care about polygamy does not affect how our society should handle the issue (or any other). The logic and reason of our current social conditions should define our laws.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:tuna55 wrote: When you've actually read the whole thing, come back and we'll talk.What if I had already read it 20x by the time I was twelve and still think it's nonsense? Actually reading the bible is the best cure there is for believing it was proxied by divinity.
Which only reinforces the numerous studies done that show those who aren't religious tend to have higher knowledge of religious texts than those who follow them.
jj wrote:Brett_Murphy wrote: Ok. How about this: In 2 Samuel 12:8, God said that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more. This is why people tear their hair out. In some areas, it seems that the bible is against polygamy, in others it seems to say if you're important enough it will be overlooked, or if circumstances warranted it, it might be allowed to deviate from the ideal biblical path of marriage.The Bible should always be read with the greater context in mind. You can't just pluck a verse out of the Bible and use it as a law by itself. God never intended polygamy, and just because it happened in the Bible does not mean that God condoned it. If you would take the time to study what actually happened that would make for a better discussion. If you have the time, these two links give a good background and context to a Biblical view of marriage. Also, they are text or audio files. First one, do a word search for polygamy, starts about halfway down. http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/1301/bible-questions-and-answers-part-2 Second is the big picture relating to marriage. http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-229/gods-intent-for-marriage-part-1 for 2 Samuel 12:8: "The phraseology means nothing more than that God in His providence had given David, as king of Israel, everything that was Saul's. The history furnishes conclusive evidence that he never actually married any of the wives of Saul. But the harem of the preceding king belongs, according to Oriental notions, as a part of the regalia to his successor." https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/jfb/2Sa/2Sa_012.cfm?a=279008 Basically in that verse God was saying: "'I anointed you … I delivered you … I gave you … and gave you the house of Israel and Judah … I also would have given you much more': Through Nathan, God explains to David that his sin was really a base expression of ingratitude. When God gave all this to David and had so much more to give him, David sought out sin instead." https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/guzik_david/StudyGuide_2Sa/2Sa_12.cfm?a=279008
According their interpretation of a book, made up of texts approaching 1800 years old, that have been translated through multiple languages and edits.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:tuna55 wrote: When you've actually read the whole thing, come back and we'll talk.What if I had already read it 20x by the time I was twelve and still think it's nonsense? Actually reading the bible is the best cure there is for believing it was proxied by divinity.
I didn't say if you read the whole thing you'd believe it. I said you'd understand what it said about polygamy.
In reply to tuna55:
I knew you weren't really out 
KyAllroad wrote: As long as the parties involved are consenting adults I have absolutely NO problem with people getting through life in whatever way floats their boat. Honestly there is a lot to be said for a group marriage: increased stability, shared responsibilities, theoretically greater financial security.
All theoretical, and categorically false in reality-land statements.
tuna55 wrote:Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:I didn't say if you read the whole thing you'd believe it. I said you'd understand what it said about polygamy.tuna55 wrote: When you've actually read the whole thing, come back and we'll talk.What if I had already read it 20x by the time I was twelve and still think it's nonsense? Actually reading the bible is the best cure there is for believing it was proxied by divinity.
Then learn us. The "I'm out, read the whole thing" seems like possibly you don't understand the context well enough to explain it.
Also, this is what is ruining the country. 
In reply to z31maniac:
I can respect the sarcasm of that.
I wonder if we can have the "States must recognize same sex marriages" ruling used as a precedent to force all the other states to recognize our firearms licenses. When you look at the basics, it should be plausible.
jj wrote: This really gets off the thread topic, but it might make for another thread if anyone is interested. I wish there were more who were open to frank discussion rather than just saying "it's really old, therefore it must have changed over time." There is enough evidence to make the Bible more accurate and reliable to its original text than for Shakespeare's writings.
I'm always open for a discussion. I might just learn something.
Here is the thing, though, and why I did what I did. Cherry-picking Bible verses seems to be a common tactic to back up particular points of view. Here is my thought: the core message of the bible boils down to "Don't be a dick to other people, and try to live your life in a way that leaves the world a better place than you found it." That's a message I can get behind. Plenty of other religions preach the same message, too.
Brett_Murphy wrote: < Here is my thought: the core message of the bible boils down to "Don't be a dick to other people, and try to live your life in a way that leaves the world a better place than you found it." That's a message I can get behind. Plenty of other religions preach the same message, too.
That was pretty much Christ's message. The rest the world can do without
yamaha wrote: In reply to z31maniac: I can respect the sarcasm of that. I wonder if we can have the "States must recognize same sex marriages" ruling used as a precedent to force all the other states to recognize our firearms licenses. When you look at the basics, it should be plausible.
then you get into the debate of who's firearm licenses/laws would become the law of the land … something like the ease of obtaining of somewhere like Texas, or the restricted "rights" of something like New York
mad_machine wrote:Brett_Murphy wrote: < Here is my thought: the core message of the bible boils down to "Don't be a dick to other people, and try to live your life in a way that leaves the world a better place than you found it." That's a message I can get behind. Plenty of other religions preach the same message, too.That was pretty much Christ's message. The rest the world can do without
great in principle … (and to which I subscribe, along with my belief in eternal life through Christ) … but the "problem" is trying to reconcile the apparent differences in the Old and New Testaments … something that have plagued scholars for hundreds (thousands) of years
and re. the mention of Shakespeare's authenticity v. that of the modern translations of the Bible …
note that I mention the "modern translations" …
every time something gets translated from one language to another, and it can be argued that translating from the King James version to "modern" english, is just as problematic as translating from the ancient Greek or Arabic into Latin or the aforementioned King James …
words, phrases, get that persons interpretation … translations is NOT an exact science … haven't you all laughed at the attempts at translating instructions from Chinese to American English ?
and as I'm willing to bet that, as diverse as we as a group are, that there aren't any on here that are EXPERTS on the ancient language(s) of the Bible … none of us know what the original writings actually say
but as been noted .. this is really in need of it's own thread
as to the marriage thing .. it does, IMHO need to be sanctioned at the federal level .. because of all the reasons listed in the previous 6/7 pages of this thread …
the different Churches can say/do whatever they want, as far as accepting, performing, even preaching against SS marriages .. plenty of the different denominations are already performing and accepting SS marriages already … but no one (as a government) is making them do so
wbjones wrote:mad_machine wrote:great in principle … (and to which I subscribe, along with my belief in eternal life through Christ) … but the "problem" is trying to reconcile the apparent differences in the Old and New Testaments … something that have plagued scholars for hundreds (thousands) of years and re. the mention of Shakespeare's authenticity v. that of the modern translations of the Bible … note that I mention the "modern translations" … every time something gets translated from one language to another, and it can be argued that translating from the King James version to "modern" english, is just as problematic as translating from the ancient Greek or Arabic into Latin or the aforementioned King James … words, phrases, get that persons interpretation … translations is NOT an exact science … haven't you all laughed at the attempts at translating instructions from Chinese to American English ? and as I'm willing to bet that, as diverse as we as a group are, that there aren't any on here that are EXPERTS on the ancient language(s) of the Bible … none of us know what the original writings actually sayBrett_Murphy wrote: < Here is my thought: the core message of the bible boils down to "Don't be a dick to other people, and try to live your life in a way that leaves the world a better place than you found it." That's a message I can get behind. Plenty of other religions preach the same message, too.That was pretty much Christ's message. The rest the world can do without
Great point.
And that's modern culture to modern culture and sometimes there still isn't a way to properly translate it.
In reply to wbjones:
We are going with the most permissive marriage laws, we should do the same for gun laws.
As for polygamy my wife has had me watch Sister Wives for a few seasons. Maybe I'm cynical but at least from watching the families on the show I don't think they want to be legally married as much as they don't want to be prosecuted. It seems from things they've alluded to on the show that they are in the eyes of the law a herd of unwed mothers and are using that to take advantage of some govt programs like food stamps to afford their lifestyle. It looks like the white version of daddy driving an Escalade and living at baby mamas public housing unit that we all decry as abusing the system.
Wally wrote: In reply to wbjones: We are going with the most permissive marriage laws, we should do the same for gun laws. As for polygamy my wife has had me watch Sister Wives for a few seasons. Maybe I'm cynical but at least from watching the families on the show I don't think they want to be legally married as much as they don't want to be prosecuted. It seems from things they've alluded to on the show that they are in the eyes of the law a herd of unwed mothers and are using that to take advantage of some govt programs like food stamps to afford their lifestyle. It looks like the white version of daddy driving an Escalade and living at baby mamas public housing unit that we all decry as abusing the system.
no argument here … I'm just pointing out the "problems" that will come up if/when this is tried
Wally wrote: In reply to wbjones: We are going with the most permissive marriage laws, we should do the same for gun laws.
IMHO you need to find a better example. Gun laws are more liberal than marriage. Other than a background check and restrictions on automatics, you don't need a blood test, and no license required. Better yet, there are no laws concerning relationships with multiple guns. Although like marriage, there is a patchwork of local laws.
In New York it was far easier for me to get married than get a handgun, and unlike a handgun I can take my wife anywhere. I didn't need a blood test for either and the wedding didn't require a background check, character witnesses or a waiting period.
z31maniac wrote:wbjones wrote:Great point. And that's modern culture to modern culture and sometimes there still isn't a way to properly translate it.mad_machine wrote:great in principle … (and to which I subscribe, along with my belief in eternal life through Christ) … but the "problem" is trying to reconcile the apparent differences in the Old and New Testaments … something that have plagued scholars for hundreds (thousands) of years and re. the mention of Shakespeare's authenticity v. that of the modern translations of the Bible … note that I mention the "modern translations" … every time something gets translated from one language to another, and it can be argued that translating from the King James version to "modern" english, is just as problematic as translating from the ancient Greek or Arabic into Latin or the aforementioned King James … words, phrases, get that persons interpretation … translations is NOT an exact science … haven't you all laughed at the attempts at translating instructions from Chinese to American English ? and as I'm willing to bet that, as diverse as we as a group are, that there aren't any on here that are EXPERTS on the ancient language(s) of the Bible … none of us know what the original writings actually sayBrett_Murphy wrote: < Here is my thought: the core message of the bible boils down to "Don't be a dick to other people, and try to live your life in a way that leaves the world a better place than you found it." That's a message I can get behind. Plenty of other religions preach the same message, too.That was pretty much Christ's message. The rest the world can do without
it's not only that.. different versions have different books in them (going by religion here) and even differing translations of the same text.. most of it done by the monks of the time either to suit their own needs or the needs of their benefactor.
jj wrote: So is there any interest in an "authenticity of the Bible" thread? Maybe with a rule of supporting posts with sources, facts, etc.? Who would be in?
No. No one is going to change their mind.
People already believe it is Truth or fiction, and will not be swayed. You either believe it to be divinely wrought or not. If you believe it's divinely wrought, you believe it's message remains true even if convinced the specifics of words have gotten a bit muddled over the years. If you do not believe it was divinely wrought, you do not believe it's true even if convinced that we can reasonably understand what it originally said.
wbjones wrote:yamaha wrote: In reply to z31maniac: I can respect the sarcasm of that. I wonder if we can have the "States must recognize same sex marriages" ruling used as a precedent to force all the other states to recognize our firearms licenses. When you look at the basics, it should be plausible.then you get into the debate of who's firearm licenses/laws would become the law of the land … something like the ease of obtaining of somewhere like Texas, or the restricted "rights" of something like New York
That is true, but I think the majority aren't backwards thinking when it comes to that. I think the majority's will can be imposed upon Illinois, New York, California, New Jersey, Connecticut, & Massachusetts.
Fundamentally, restrictions are equivelant to denying those of their rights guaranteed in the bill of rights.
In reply to alfadriver:
I would not be surprised if they required entry into a DNA database in NY.....they'll probably still refuse your carry license however. 
yamaha wrote: Fundamentally, restrictions are equivelant to denying those of their rights guaranteed in the bill of rights.
I don't believe in Draconian gun laws or anything, however, I fail to see how a bunch of untrained, unorganized citizens constitute a "well organized militia."
Or is this 2nd Amendment folks going for the whole "living document" argument? 
I'd like to thank whomever sent me the funny example regarding Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwiches.
However, your analogy doesn't hold any weight or else you would have shared it publicly.
In reply to z31maniac:
The living document debate has been used by those who want restrictions. To understand it, you must understand the meaning of the words at the time it was written and in what context they were used. "Well regulated" usually meant functioning while "militia" was made up of ordinary citizens outside of government control.
Words change meaning with time unfortunately and with them usually leads to failed interpretations.
You'll need to log in to post.
